4 ms·

> An argument can be made that laying off however many employees also helps to preserve the ongoing livelihood of the employees who remain. That argument fall

> An argument can be made that laying off however many employees also helps to preserve the ongoing livelihood of the employees who remain. That argument falls flat on its face as soon as you look at the balance sheet of these companies. They are exceeding expectations and still laying people off.

tsujamin 2y ago
This reminds me of the argument GE made (from David Gelles book about Welch) that laying off staff is a kindness, as it lets them try and find a new job they’re “better suited for” sooner rather than later
- pdimitar 2y ago
  Sounds like somebody who never had a mortgage payment overdue and the bank calling and threatening to confiscate the house / apartment, and with two pre-school kids constantly introducing unexpected expenses. But then again, I never expected the ruling class to be empathetic.
  - rty32 2y ago
    Exactly. Laying people off isn't necessarily a bad thing by itself if it "needs" to happen, but (at least in the US) what follows is loss of health insurance and income money needed for mortgage. Millionaires don't have that problem and can easily tell peasants to suck it up.
    - cpach 2y ago
      Regarding unemployment benefits: In many countries there are unemployment insurance funds set up so that one can maintain a somewhat reasonable level of income even in the event of unemployment. E.g. here’s what it looks like in my locale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_funds_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_funds_in_Sweden The upside of having a system like that is that the burden to ”care for” the employee’s economical safety is not put solely on their current employer, but not solely on the employee either. In order to be eligible for payouts the employee has to pay in to the fund every month (something like ~14 USD) – and all companies are mandated to contribute pay in to this system. Personally, I see few downsides with this system. It’s important for the general economy that companies can be flexible and change direction, e.g. when the economy cools off or in the face of competition. Therefore I believe layoffs are sometimes necessary for the company to survive. But it’s also important – both for ethical and economical reasons – that layoffs doesn’t wreak havoc with the personal finances of the people being let go. Regarding healthcare: To me it does not seem like a good idea to tie a person’s health insurance to their current employer. AFAICT this is a remnant of the US war economy during WW2. But that doesn’t mean that a system like UK’s NIH is superior. To me, the German model looks very reasonable where citizens are required to sign up for insurance but the benefits are not tied to the person’s employment. One can read more about it here: https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/life/health-in-germany-how-health-insurance-companies-work https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/life/health-in-germany-h... I think Singapore has a similar system.
      - pdimitar 2y ago
        And here's me, contracting for like 10 years now, and having zero to do with any employment laws. :D Once you are not under them you are completely on your own, at least here in Eastern Europe.
        cpach 2y ago
        Interesting. Feel free to elaborate! E.g. do you have to pay full price for healthcare etc?
        pdimitar 2y ago
        Yes, all stuff that the country's budget needs from you, you pay them manually each 1-3 months... or else. That's more or less how it's best described. Once you are not an employee you need an accountant, or you need to be very well versed in the laws and the monthly payments to the country's budget yourself. If neither, some 6-12 months later you get persecuted and called in court, with the possibility to have some of your property confiscated. They don't like small businesses very much.
  - tsujamin 2y ago
    Exactly, the logic was somewhat abhorrent and (given the wider context of GE at the time) clearly disingenuous
bryanrasmussen 2y ago
>That argument falls flat on its face as soon as you look at the balance sheet of these companies. They are exceeding expectations and still laying people off. I thought it was a discussion about generic companies, but it seems to be a discussion about specific ones?
- newswasboring 2y ago
  This is talking about a generic company, in 2024. If you look at the layoffs that happened in recent years, the biggest ones were made by companies in profit or at least meeting their own projections.
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    are these American companies you're talking about?

tsujamin 2y ago

This reminds me of the argument GE made (from David Gelles book about Welch) that laying off staff is a kindness, as it lets them try and find a new job they’re “better suited for” sooner rather than later

pdimitar 2y ago
Sounds like somebody who never had a mortgage payment overdue and the bank calling and threatening to confiscate the house / apartment, and with two pre-school kids constantly introducing unexpected expenses. But then again, I never expected the ruling class to be empathetic.
- rty32 2y ago
  Exactly. Laying people off isn't necessarily a bad thing by itself if it "needs" to happen, but (at least in the US) what follows is loss of health insurance and income money needed for mortgage. Millionaires don't have that problem and can easily tell peasants to suck it up.
  - cpach 2y ago
    Regarding unemployment benefits: In many countries there are unemployment insurance funds set up so that one can maintain a somewhat reasonable level of income even in the event of unemployment. E.g. here’s what it looks like in my locale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_funds_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_funds_in_Sweden The upside of having a system like that is that the burden to ”care for” the employee’s economical safety is not put solely on their current employer, but not solely on the employee either. In order to be eligible for payouts the employee has to pay in to the fund every month (something like ~14 USD) – and all companies are mandated to contribute pay in to this system. Personally, I see few downsides with this system. It’s important for the general economy that companies can be flexible and change direction, e.g. when the economy cools off or in the face of competition. Therefore I believe layoffs are sometimes necessary for the company to survive. But it’s also important – both for ethical and economical reasons – that layoffs doesn’t wreak havoc with the personal finances of the people being let go. Regarding healthcare: To me it does not seem like a good idea to tie a person’s health insurance to their current employer. AFAICT this is a remnant of the US war economy during WW2. But that doesn’t mean that a system like UK’s NIH is superior. To me, the German model looks very reasonable where citizens are required to sign up for insurance but the benefits are not tied to the person’s employment. One can read more about it here: https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/life/health-in-germany-how-health-insurance-companies-work https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/life/health-in-germany-h... I think Singapore has a similar system.
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      And here's me, contracting for like 10 years now, and having zero to do with any employment laws. :D Once you are not under them you are completely on your own, at least here in Eastern Europe.
      - cpach 2y ago
        Interesting. Feel free to elaborate! E.g. do you have to pay full price for healthcare etc?
        pdimitar 2y ago
        Yes, all stuff that the country's budget needs from you, you pay them manually each 1-3 months... or else. That's more or less how it's best described. Once you are not an employee you need an accountant, or you need to be very well versed in the laws and the monthly payments to the country's budget yourself. If neither, some 6-12 months later you get persecuted and called in court, with the possibility to have some of your property confiscated. They don't like small businesses very much.
- tsujamin 2y ago
  Exactly, the logic was somewhat abhorrent and (given the wider context of GE at the time) clearly disingenuous

bryanrasmussen 2y ago

>That argument falls flat on its face as soon as you look at the balance sheet of these companies. They are exceeding expectations and still laying people off. I thought it was a discussion about generic companies, but it seems to be a discussion about specific ones?

newswasboring 2y ago
This is talking about a generic company, in 2024. If you look at the layoffs that happened in recent years, the biggest ones were made by companies in profit or at least meeting their own projections.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  are these American companies you're talking about?